USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Estimate of contract workers affected by Hillsborough County's potential living wage ordinance

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Estimate of contract workers affected by Hillsborough County's potential living wage ordinance
Physical Description:
1 online resource (ii, 30 p.) : ;
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Economic Development Research
Hillsborough County (Fla.) -- Health & Social Services Dept
Publisher:
Center for Economic Development Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Wages -- Florida -- Hillsborough County   ( lcsh )
Living wage movement -- Florida -- Hillsborough County   ( lcsh )
Economic conditions -- Hillsborough County (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared for Hillsborough County Department of Health and Social Services by the Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida.
General Note:
Title from PDF of cover (viewed Sept. 22, 2009).
General Note:
"February 2004."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002029779
oclc - 437430942
usfldc doi - C63-00050
usfldc handle - c63.50
System ID:
SFS0000326:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Estimate of Contract Workers Affected by Hillsborough County’s Potential Living Wage Ordinance Prepared for Hillsborough County Department of Health and Social Services by the CENTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH College of Business Administration 1101 Channelside Dr., 2nd Floor N., Tampa, Florida 33602 Office: (813) 905-5854 or Fax: (813) 905-5856 February 2004

PAGE 2

i Preface In order to study the impacts of a potential “living wage” ordinance, the Hillsborough County Department of Health and Social Services initially commissioned the Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR) to perform three tasks. After completion of the first task, a fourth task was added. The four tasks are: (1) quantitatively summarize findings from available post-enactment studies of living wage ordinances and policies, (2) review available pre-enactment studies of living wage ordinances and policies for methodologies that might usefully supplement REMI Policy Insight economic modeling software, (3) estimate, by industry code, the number of Hillsborough County’s contracted workers that would be affected by a potential living wage ordinance, and (4) use the REMI Policy Insight economic model to estimate the economic impacts of the potential living wage ordinance in terms of jobs, wage and salary disbursements, and output (sales) on the Hillsborough County economy. The first task was completed on December 12, 2003 when CEDR delivered its report, “Summary of Selected Post-Enactment Living Wage Studies,” to the Hillsborough County Department of Health and Social Services. The second task was completed on January 8, 2004 upon delivery of its report, “Review of Selected Pre-Enactment Living Wage Studies,” also to the Hillsborough County Department of Health and Social Services. These reports are available for download from CEDR’s Internet site at http://cedr.coba.usf.edu This report is in fulfillment of the third task. The Center for Economic Development Research initiates and conducts innovative research on economic development. The Center’s education programs are designed to cultivate excellence in regional development. Our information system serves to enhance development efforts at the University of South Florida, its College of Business, and throughout the Tampa Bay region. Robert Anderson, Dean, College of Business Administration (COBA), USF Dennis Colie, Director, Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR), COBA, USF Dave Sobush, Research Associate, CEDR, COBA, USF, Economist and Principal Investigator Revised February 16, 2004

PAGE 3

ii Executive Summary Methodology CEDR employed a modified Schutz-Nissen approach to estimate the number of workers affected and the wage bill increase due to a potential “living wage” ordinance. This method involves comparing annualized dollar values of contracts, industry averages of annual output per worker, and Census Bureau data on wage distributions by industry to five scenarios for a “living wage” ordinance. Scenarios Analyzed CEDR analyzed five scenarios for a “living wage” ordinance. The scenarios varied on the dollar value of service and construction contracts included, as well as by the wages required under each scenario. Table 1E summarizes the five scenarios. Table 1E – Summary of Potential “Living Wage” Ordinance Scenarios Scenario Dollar Value of Contract Wage with Health Care Benefits Wage without Health Care Benefits 1 $100,000 $7.33/Hour $ 9.33/Hour 2 $25,000 $9.97/Hour $11.97/Hour 3 $50,000 $9.97/Hour $11.97/Hour 4 $100,000 $9.97/Hour $11.97/Hour 5 $50,000 $7.33/Hour $ 9.33/Hour Affected Workers The estimated number of affected workers (expressed by worker equivalents) ranges from 357.17 under Scenario 1 ($7.33/hr, assuming all workers have health care coverage) to 1,235.29 under Scenario 2 ($11.97/hr, assuming no workers have health care coverage). These estimates represent 12.56% and 41.38%, respectively, of the estimated total worker equivalents working on county contracts covered by their scenario. This range, reported a priori to selection of a single scenario, represents the high and low estimates from all scenarios. Wage Bill Increase The estimated total wage bill increase ranges from $762,097 under Scenario 1 ($7.33/hr, assuming all workers have health care coverage) to $8,855,322 under Scenario 2 ($11.97/hr, assuming no workers have health care coverage). These estimates represent 0.30% and 3.41%, respectively, of the annualized dollar values of contracts covered by their scenario. This range, reported a priori to selection of a single scenario, represents the high and low estimates from all scenarios.

PAGE 4

1 Introduction In order to estimate the annual economic impacts of a “living wage” ordinance on the Hillsborough County economy, the Hillsborough County Department of Health and Social Services contracted CEDR to use the REMI Policy Insight economic software. Subsequently, the same organization contracted CEDR to estimate the wage and salary disbursement (by industry) inputs to the REMI model. The purpose of this report is to estimate those inputs. The Hillsborough County Living Wage Task Force is the motivation for this research. On October 15, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) authorized creation of the task force to study the impact of adopting a “living wage” ordinance in the County. The task force identified “core variables” for a potential ordinance. The task force’s “core variables” are reproduced in Appendix A The task force also created five scenarios, shown in Appendix B for economic analysis by CEDR. Methodology We use a modified Schutz – Nissen approach to make our estimate. Nissen obtains county contracts and uses contract titles as a guide to the type of contract, because he only includes service contracts.1 He assigned each service contract an industry code (SIC) and yearly cost. He uses Dun & Bradstreet’s “Disclosure” data files to verify a contracting firm’s SIC. He converts yearly costs into employment estimates based on Census data on the number of employees in Miami-Dade County per $100,000 of sales, i.e. the county’s contract cost equals the firm’s sales for a particular contract. Then, he again uses Census data to estimate the percentage of workers who are paid less than a specified “living wage” level. Schutz uses a procedure very similar to the Nissen methodology .2 He obtains county contracting data from Orange County and sends the data to Dun & Bradstreet. Dun & Bradstreet return to Professor Schutz information about each contractor’s total employment, sales and industry (SIC) code. He then estimates the number of contractors’ employees currently working at less than a specified “living wage” using Census data. To generate the estimates of workers affected by a potential “living wage” ordinance, CEDR modified the Schutz-Nissen approach as follows. Using contract data provided by Hillsborough County and the most recently available version of the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation’s Enhanced Quarterly Unemployment Insurance (EQUI) database, we determine industry (SIC) codes for each contractor. Next, we compare REMI tables of industry annual output per job to the dollar value of the contracts. By dividing the annualized value of a firm’s Hillsborough County contracts (the contracts’ “output”) by the industry’s output per job, we estimate the number of employees who work on county contracts during a year. 1 Nissen, Bruce. The Impact of a Living Wage Ordinance on Miami-Dade County October 1998. 2 Schutz, Eric, Susan Orr, and Sherry Ambrose. A Living Wage in Orange County: Arguments and Research Undated.

PAGE 5

2 Having estimated the total number of employees working on County contracts, we then estimate the number of these employees who earn less than a potential “living wage,” and the average wage of these workers. To do so, we use the Census Bureau’s 5Percent Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) database. PUMS data files contain records for a sample of households with information on the characteristics of each unit and each person in it, including wage and salary income, weeks and hours per week worked, and industry of employment for year 1999. We query the PUMS database to determine the percentage of workers, by industry, who earn less than the potential “living wage.” This percentage is applied to the number of workers in each applicable industry working on County contracts to estimate the number of employees affected by a potential “living wage” ordinance. We query the PUMS database a second time to determine the average pre-enactment wages of the affected workers. We then multiply the number of affected workers by the difference between the average pre-enactment wage and the potential “living wage” to estimate the post-enactment wage bill increase. The wage bill increase by industry group will form the inputs for the REMI model to determine the economic impact. Chart 1 displays the methodology used to estimate the number of workers affected by and the wage bill increase due to a potential “living wage” ordinance. The text color refers to the source of data: blue text refers to the PUMS database, red text refers to REMI data. Chart 1 – Methodology for Estimating Workers Affected and Wage Bill Increase Due to Potential “Living Wage” Ordinance (LWO) Output Contract Values Worker = Workers Working On County Contracts Workers Working On County Contracts X % of Workers Earning Less Than Target Living Wage = # of Workers Affected by LWO # of Workers Affected by LWO X (Target Living WageAverage Hourly Wage ) = Total Hourly Wage Bill Increase for Workers Affected by LWO 40 hours 52 Weeks Total Hourly Wage Bill Increase for Workers Affected by LWO X Week X Year = Total Hourly Wage Bill Increase for Workers Affected by LWO

PAGE 6

3 Determination of Industry Codes The contract data supplied by Hillsborough County’s Purchasing Department included, for each of the 559 contracts, the dollar value of the contract, the contract title, vendor name, vendor address, and vendor ID number. The vendor ID number the vendors’ tax ID number was the primary key used in querying the State of Florida’s Enhanced Quarterly Unemployment Insurance (EQUI) database. We queried the EQUI database to determine Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes of the vendors.3 The first “pass” resulted in successful matches of 394 contracts’ vendor ID numbers (70.48% of the total). Subsequently, we manually searched through the EQUI database by vendor name and address for SIC codes. This process netted an additional 53 contracts’ worth of SIC codes (9.48% of the total). Using the ArcView Business Analyst software, we determined the SIC codes for an additional 47 contracts (8.41% of the total). Two other databases owned by USF – Dun & Bradstreet and ReferenceUSA – were consulted, resulting in 33 contracts’ worth of SIC codes (5.90% of the total). These four steps accounted for 527 (94.28%) of the SIC codes determined. The remaining 32 (5.72%) were assigned SIC codes based on the contract name, and if possible, telephone contact with representatives of the vendor. Table 1 displays, by method, the number of vendors’ SIC codes determined, and their respective percentage of the total contracts.4 Table 1 – Method Of SIC Code Determination Method Amount % of Total EQUI 394 70.48% EQUI Manual 53 9.48% ArcView Business Analyst 47 8.41% Business Directories 33 5.90% Assigned 32 5.72% Total 559 100.00% Appendix C contains a list of the contracts assigned SIC codes, the vendors’ names, the value of the contract, the SIC code assigned, and a description of that SIC code. Annualization of Contract Dollar Values In order to develop useful inputs into the REMI software, we annualized the dollar values of county contracts. For Blanket Purchase Orders (BPOs), we subtracted the effective date of the contract from the expiration date of the contract to determine the number of days the contract is in effect. We divided this result by 365 to determine the number of years the contract is in effect. The face contract value – the total dollar value of the contract – was divided by the number of years the contract is in effect to determine 3 The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) is a system developed by the U.S. government to classify industries. 4 This total, 559, includes 2 contracts with the Hillsboro ugh County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) and 6 contracts with volunteer fire departments (VFDs). These 8 contracts were excluded from our analysis. HCSO employees will be examined in a future analysis, and VFDs, by definition, do not pay wages.

PAGE 7

4 the annualized dollar value of the contract. In no case was the face value of the contract divided by a number less than 1.00, i.e., multiplied. Other contracts, known as Purchase Orders (POs), have no effective or expiration date assigned to them. Instead, a posting date is given for each contract. We assume uniform distribution of the face dollar value throughout 2003. Output per Worker Ratios The Nissen and Schutz studies cited previously used industry ratios of sales per employee to estimate the number of employees working on contracts. We created tables of industry output per worker using REMI baseline data. In economic parlance, output equals sales adjusted for inventory levels. The majority of firms analyzed are classified as either construction or service-providing establishments, and firms of this nature typically do not carry substantive inventories, if any. Therefore, output is an appropriate measurement by which to measure economic contributions. Additionally, our ratios of industry output per worker are based on Hillsborough County data, providing regional specificity to our analysis. We then divide the annualized contract vale by the industryappropriate output per worker ratio to estimate the number of workers required by each contract. Appendix D contains the output per worker values used throughout this report. Hillsborough County occasionally contracts with other governmental organizations. However, the regional Economic Accounts of the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) only provide output data for private industries. Because the BEA data is the source of the output data in the REMI model, output per worker is not available for these governmental organizations. Therefore, in order to apply output per worker ratios to the annualized value of inter-governmental contracts, we reclassified the SIC of the government vendor according to the contract title. Appendix E lists the government vendor contracts and their reclassified SIC codes. Wage Distributions and Average Wages Having estimated the total number of employees working on each contract, we estimate the percentage of workers, by industry, earning less than the target “living wage” and the average hourly wages of those workers. To do so, we query the Census Bureau’s 5-Percent Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) database for the 2000 decennial census. The PUMS record for an individual contains data on industry of employment, weeks worked in 1999, hours per week worked in 1999, and wage income for 1999. We exclude all workers whose average hourly wages were calculated at less than $5.15/hour. The federal minimum wage of $5.15/hour went into effect September 1, 1997. Aside from errors with the 2000 Census, workers calculated to earn less than that wage can be classified as sole proprietors or “shadow” workers, those workers who accept wages offered at less than the minimum wage. In either case, these workers would not likely be affected by a “living wage” ordinance and were therefore excluded from this analysis. We extract workers by Super-Public Use Microdata Area code (Super-PUMA)

PAGE 8

5 to develop regional specificity for our analysis. We select industry-specific individual worker records from the smallest geographic region that provides a sample size greater than 1,000. Appendix F describes the geographic regions of interest and their corresponding Super-PUMA codes. For each worker, we divide 1999 wage income by 1999 weeks worked and divide that result by 1999 hours worked per week to determine 1999 hourly wage income. From the sample, we determine the percentage of workers earning less than the target “living wage” and the 1999 average hourly wage of those workers. Appendix G describes, by industry, the sample size, geographic area, wage distribution ratios, and average hourly wages of workers earning less than the targeted “living wage.” Estimation of REMI Inputs For each of the 5 scenarios, we estimate number of workers that would be affected by a “living wage” ordinance and the annual wage bill increase required to raise the average wages of these workers to that of the target “living wage.” The number of workers affected equals the total number of workers working on County contracts multiplied by the percentage of workers earning less than the target “living wage.” The annual wage bill increase equals the number of workers affected by the “living wage” under each scenario multiplied by the difference between the target “living wage” and the average hourly wage of these workers, multiplied by a factor of 2080 (52 weeks/year X 40hours/week). Although the wage data extracted from the PUMS database is for year 1999, we do not inflate the wages. To do so would assume that wages have moved in lockstep with inflation since that year and no worker earns the minimum $5.15 wage any longer. Therefore, our estimates of workers affected can be considered biased upward, and our estimates of the average wages of the affected workers biased downward. Table 2 displays the variables for each scenario, and the estimates of wage bill increases that will serve as the REMI inputs. Note that each scenario is divided into two sub-scenarios. One set of sub scenarios assumes all workers have health benefits, and the other set assumes no workers have health benefits, thus producing a range of estimates for input into the REMI model.

PAGE 9

6 Table 2 – Summary of Scenarios and Estimates Scenario Minimum Contract Targeted Hourly Wage % of Workers with Health Care Benefits Total Annualized Value of Contracts Worker Equivalents Affected Workers as Expressed by Worker Equivalents Total Wage Bill Increase Due to Contracts 1a $ 100,000 $ 7.33 100% $ 251,719,960 2,844.76 357.17 $ 762,097 1b $ 100,000 $ 9.33 0% $ 251,719,960 2,844.76 718.24 $ 3,035,226 2a $ 25,000 $ 9.97 100% $ 259,697,990 2,985.22 889.10 $ 4,333,780 2b $ 25,000 $ 11.97 0% $ 259,697,990 2,985.22 1,235.29 $ 8,855,322 3a $ 50,000 $ 9.97 100% $ 256,811,887 2,936.53 872.21 $ 4,247,909 3b $ 50,000 $ 11.97 0% $ 256,811,887 2,936.53 1,212.38 $ 8,685,003 4a $ 100,000 $ 9.97 100% $ 251,719,960 2,844.76 841.03 $ 4,089,490 4b $ 100,000 $ 11.97 0% $ 251,719,960 2,844.76 1,170.10 $ 8,370,517 5a $ 50,000 $ 7.33 100% $ 256,811,887 2,936.53 371.12 $ 792,967 5b $ 50,000 $ 9.33 0% $ 256,811,887 2,936.53 745.74 $ 3,154,030 Table 3 provides comparisons for each of the sub-scenarios with respect to the total annualized dollar value of contracts and the total number of workers performing County contracts. Table 3 – Percentage Comparisons Scenario Minimum Contract Hourly Wage % of Workers with Health Care Benefits Workers Affected as a % of Worker Equivalents Total Wage Bill Increase as a % of Total Annualized Value of Contracts 1a $ 100,000 $ 7.33 100% 12.56% 0.30% 1b $ 100,000 $ 9.33 0% 25.25% 1.21% 2a $ 25,000 $ 9.97 100% 29.78% 1.67% 2b $ 25,000 $ 11.97 0% 41.38% 3.41% 3a $ 50,000 $ 9.97 100% 29.70% 1.65% 3b $ 50,000 $ 11.97 0% 41.29% 3.38% 4a $ 100,000 $ 9.97 100% 29.56% 1.62% 4b $ 100,000 $ 11.97 0% 41.13% 3.33% 5a $ 50,000 $ 7.33 100% 12.64% 0.31% 5b $ 50,000 $ 9.33 0% 25.40% 1.23% Industry Results – Scenario 1 Scenario 1 calls for a “living wage” calculated at $7.33/hour for employees that have health benefits and at $9.33/hour for employees that do not have health benefits. The scenario requires companies with contracts of $100,000 or more to pay their fulland part-time employees the “living wage” only for the hours they perform work on the County contract. This scenario covers $251,719,960 in annualized value of contracts, and 2,844.76 annual worker equivalents. Major industry group Construction (SIC 15/16/17) contributes the largest amounts towards these totals, with $89,263,789 of annualized contract value and 847.06 worker equivalents. Table 1a reports the estimated number of contractors’ employees, by major industry group, that would be affected by the potential ordinance, and the corresponding annual wage bill increase. We assume, in this sub-scenario, that all employees receive health benefits from their employers.

PAGE 10

7 Table 1a – Estimates for Sub-scenario 1a Major Industry Group Total Annualized Value of Contracts 2-Digit SIC Output per Worker Worker Equivalents % Earning Less Than $7.33/hour Affected Workers as Expressed by Worker Equivalents Mean Wage of Affected Workers Total Annual Wage Bill Increase Agricultural Services $ 1,002,709 07 $ 32,582 30.77 12.61% 3.88 $ 6.34 $ 8,010 Educational Services $ 328,343 82 $ 37,688 8.71 11.98% 1.04 $ 6.24 $ 2,370 Eating and Drinking Places $ 3,839,116 58 $ 38,469 99.80 32.54% 32.48 $ 6.19 $ 76,879 Local and Suburban Transit and Interurban Highway Passenger Transportation $ 232,500 41 $ 38,662 6.01 10.05% 0.60 $ 6.41 $ 1,157 Non-Profit Organizations $ 15,792,831 83/84/85 $ 38,849 406.52 21.96% 89.27 $ 6. 22 $ 206,336 Personal Services $ 319,621 72 $ 45,612 7.01 12.21% 0.86 $ 6.37 $ 1,715 Amusement and Recreation $ 131,551 79 $ 46,282 2.84 16.28% 0.46 $ 6.3 6 $ 938 Rest of Retail $ 3,102,256 52/55/57/59 $ 55,762 55.63 21.05% 11.71 $ 6.27 $ 25,841 Medical Services $ 12,731,064 80 $ 64,801 196.46 10.12% 19.87 $ 6.30 $ 42,380 Miscellaneous Business Services $ 6,572,154 73 $ 67,035 98.04 13.31% 13.05 $ 6.37 $ 25,935 Miscellaneous Professional Services $ 65,619,594 81/87/89/99 $ 81,950 800.73 6.08% 48.67 $ 6.36 $ 98,083 Construction $ 89,263,789 15/16/17 $ 105,381 847.06 11.86% 100.47 $ 6.38 $ 198,785 Insurance $ 2,654,047 63/64 $ 112,713 23.55 4.28% 1.01 $ 6.42 $ 1,909 Trucking $ 16,189,505 42 $ 112,788 143.54 9.56% 13.72 $ 6.38 $ 27,010 Other Transport $ 398,907 47 $ 132,894 3.00 11.39% 0.34 $ 6.35 $ 695 Wholesale Trade $ 3,113,912 50 $ 145,308 21.43 10.23% 2.19 $ 6.29 $ 4,725 Credit and Finance $ 2,337,574 67 $ 174,395 13.40 5.68% 0.76 $ 6.51 $ 1,296 Instruments $ 998,632 38 $ 276,370 3.61 10.26% 0.37 $ 6.41 $ 712 Communication $ 519,000 48 $ 293,982 1.77 3.93% 0.07 $ 6.35 $ 141 Food $ 16,809,211 54 $ 321,017 52.36 28.47% 14.91 $ 6.23 $ 34,096 Real Estate $ 538,157 65 $ 340,256 1.58 9.18% 0.15 $ 6.29 $ 315 Public Utilities $ 9,225,487 49 $ 440,808 20.93 6.10% 1.28 $ 6.29 $ 2,766 Totals $ 251,719,960 2,844.76 357.17 $ 762,097 Under the provisions of Sub-scenario 1a, we estimate 357.17 workers (as expressed by worker equivalents) would receive a wage increase. We estimate the annual wage bill increase attributed to these workers at $762,097. The greatest amount of affected workers, 100.47, is attributed to major industry group Construction. Major industry group Communication (SIC 48) contributes the fewest workers to the total – 0.07. Major industry group Non-Profit Organizations (SIC 83/84/86) contributes the greatest share of the annual wage bill increase, $206,336. Major industry group Communication contributes the smallest share of the annual wage bill increase, $141. Table 1b reports the estimated number of contractors’ employees, by major industry group, that would be affected by the potential ordinance, and the corresponding annual wage bill increase. We assume, in this case, that no employees receive health benefits from their employers.

PAGE 11

8 Table 1b – Estimates for Sub-scenario 1b Major Industry Group Total Annualized Value of Contracts 2-Digit SIC Output per Worker Worker Equivalents % Earning less than $9.33/hour Affected Workers as Expressed by Worker Equivalents Mean Wage of Affected Workers Total Wage Bill Increase Agricultural Services $ 1,002,709 07 $ 32,582 30.77 24.98% 7.69 $ 7.31 $ 32,232 Educational Services $ 328,343 82 $ 37,688 8.71 22.61% 1.97 $ 7.27 $ 8,423 Eating and Drinking Places $ 3,839,116 58 $ 38,469 99.80 53.38% 53.27 $ 6.97 $ 261,138 Local and Suburban Transit and Interurban Highway Passenger Transportation $ 232,500 41 $ 38,662 6.01 21.45% 1.29 $ 7.43 $ 5,089 Non-Profit Organizations $ 15,792,831 83/84/85 $ 38,849 406.52 41.77% 169.78 $ 7.18 $ 758,405 Personal Services $ 319,621 72 $ 45,612 7.01 23.73% 1.66 $ 7.30 $ 7,015 Amusement and Recreation $ 131,551 79 $ 46,282 2.84 29.76% 0.85 $ 7.23 $ 3,704 Rest of Retail $ 3,102,256 52/55/57/59 $ 55,762 55.63 37.20% 20.70 $ 7.16 $ 93,450 Medical Services $ 12,731,064 80 $ 64,801 196.46 21.93% 43.08 $ 7.36 $ 176,318 Miscellaneous Business Services $ 6,572,154 73 $ 67,035 98.04 26.62% 26.10 $ 7.32 $ 109,066 Miscellaneous Professional Services $ 65,619,594 81/87/89/99 $ 81,950 800.73 13.53% 108.32 $ 7.44 $ 426,067 Construction $ 89,263,789 15/16/17 $ 105,381 847.06 24.86% 210.56 $ 7.38 $ 853,487 Insurance $ 2,654,047 63/64 $ 112,713 23.55 12.75% 3.00 $ 7.74 $ 9,951 Trucking $ 16,189,505 42 $ 112,788 143.54 22.24% 31.93 $ 7.47 $ 123,451 Other Transport $ 398,907 47 $ 132,894 3.00 22.68% 0.68 $ 7.32 $ 2,843 Wholesale Trade $ 3,113,912 50 $ 145,308 21.43 23.22% 4.98 $ 7.42 $ 19,800 Credit and Finance $ 2,337,574 67 $ 174,395 13.40 17.24% 2.31 $ 7.76 $ 7,545 Instruments $ 998,632 38 $ 276,370 3.61 22.18% 0.80 $ 7.41 $ 3,198 Communication $ 519,000 48 $ 293,982 1.77 11.14% 0.20 $ 7.58 $ 717 Food $ 16,809,211 54 $ 321,017 52.36 48.68% 25.49 $ 7.07 $ 120,047 Real Estate $ 538,157 65 $ 340,256 1.58 20.48% 0.32 $ 7.41 $ 1,293 Public Utilities $ 9,225,487 49 $ 440,808 20.93 15.57% 3.26 $ 7.56 $ 11,986 Totals $ 251,719,960 2,844.76 718.24 $ 3,035,226 Under the provisions of Sub-scenario 1a, we estimate 718.24 workers (as expressed by worker equivalents) would receive a wage increase. We estimate the annual wage bill increase attributed to these workers at $3,035,226. The greatest amount of affected workers, 210.56, is attributed to major industry group Construction. Major industry group Communication (SIC 48) contributes the fewest workers to the total – 0.20. Major industry group Construction contributes the greatest share of the annual wage bill increase, $853,487. Major industry group Communication contributes the smallest share of the annual wage bill increase, $717. Industry Results – Scenario 2 Scenario 2 calls for a “living wage” calculated at $9.97/hour for employees that have health benefits and at $11.97/hour for employees that do not have health benefits. The scenario requires companies with contracts of $25,000 or more to pay their fulland part-time employees the “living wage” only for the hours they perform work on the County contract. This scenario covers $259,697,990 in annualized value of contracts, and 2,985.22 annual worker equivalents. Major industry group Construction contributes

PAGE 12

9 the largest amounts towards these totals, with $89,889,231 of annualized contract value and 852.99 worker equivalents. Table 2a reports the estimated number of contractors’ employees, by major industry group, that would be affected by the potential ordinance, and the corresponding annual wage bill increase. We assume, in this sub-scenario, that all employees receive health benefits from their employers. Table 2a Estimates for Sub-scenario 2a Major Industry Group Total Annualized Value of Contracts 2-Digit SIC Output per Worker Worker Equivalents % Earning less than $9.97/hour Affected Workers as Expressed by Worker Equivalents Mean Wage of Affected Workers Total Wage Bill Increase Agricultural Services $ 1,332,320 07 $ 32,582 40.89 29.24% 11.96 $ 7.65 $ 57,749 Educational Services $ 388,102 82 $ 37,688 10.30 25.43% 2.62 $ 7.53 $ 13,274 Eating and Drinking Places $ 3,839,116 58 $ 38,469 99.80 58.78% 58.66 $ 7.21 $ 336,161 Local and Suburban Transit and Interurban Highway Passenger Transportation $ 397,500 41 $ 38,662 10.28 26.76% 2.75 $ 7.87 $ 12,042 Non-Profit Organizations $ 18,175,066 83/84/85 $ 38,849 467.84 45.73% 213.92 $ 7.39 $ 1,146,796 Personal Services $ 503,318 72 $ 45,612 11.03 27.38% 3.02 $ 7.61 $ 14,840 Amusement and Recreation $ 131,551 79 $ 46,282 2.84 33.88% 0.96 $ 7.51 $ 4,920 Rest of Retail $ 3,166,196 52/55/57/59 $ 55,762 56.78 42.30% 24.02 $ 7.4 6 $ 125,635 Medical Services $ 13,783,947 80 $ 64,801 212.71 26.77% 56.94 $ 7.74 $ 264,645 Miscellaneous Business Services $ 7,242,407 73 $ 67,035 108.04 31.58% 34.12 $ 7.68 $ 162,504 Miscellaneous Professional Services $ 67,350,100 81/87/89/99 $ 81,950 821.84 15.84% 130.17 $ 7.75 $ 601, 294 Construction $ 89,889,231 15/16/17 $ 105,381 852.99 30.89% 263.53 $ 7.81 $ 1,181,424 Insurance $ 2,654,047 63/64 $ 112,713 23.55 17.04% 4.01 $ 8.21 $ 14,658 Trucking $ 16,322,770 42 $ 112,788 144.72 25.95% 37.56 $ 7.78 $ 171, 100 Motion Pictures $ 36,500 78 $ 114,385 0.32 26.56% 0.08 $ 7.73 $ 394 Automotive Repair and Services $ 53,643 75 $ 123,047 0.44 39.63% 0.17 $ 7.59 $ 857 Other Transport $ 495,907 47 $ 132,894 3.73 26.55% 0.99 $ 7.65 $ 4,773 Printing $ 34,974 27 $ 141,122 0.25 30.00% 0.07 $ 7.68 $ 355 Wholesale Trade $ 3,264,658 50 $ 145,308 22.47 28.42% 6.39 $ 7.82 $ 28,561 Credit and Finance $ 2,377,574 61/67 $ 174,395 13.63 22.93% 3.13 $ 8.22 $ 11,366 Instruments $ 998,632 38 $ 276,370 3.61 27.01% 0.98 $ 7.81 $ 4,390 Communication $ 637,576 48 $ 293,982 2.17 14.41% 0.31 $ 8.04 $ 1,257 Food $ 16,809,211 54 $ 321,017 52.36 54.11% 28.33 $ 7.32 $ 156,065 Real Estate $ 538,157 65 $ 340,256 1.58 23.71% 0.38 $ 7.71 $ 1,763 Public Utilities $ 9,275,487 49 $ 440,808 21.04 19.17% 4.03 $ 7.95 $ 16,960 Totals $ 259,697,990 2,985.22 889.10 $ 4,333,780 Under the provisions of Sub-scenario 2a, we estimate 889.10 workers (as expressed by worker equivalents) would receive a wage increase. We estimate the annual wage bill increase attributed to these workers at $4,333,780. The greatest amount of affected workers, 263.53, is attributed to major industry group Construction. Major industry group Printing (SIC 27) contributes the fewest workers to the total – 0.07. Major industry group Construction contributes the greatest share of the annual wage bill increase, $1,181,424. Major industry group Printing contributes the smallest share of the annual wage bill increase, $355.

PAGE 13

10 Table 2b reports the estimated number of contractors’ employees, by major industry group, that would be affected by the potential ordinance, and the corresponding annual wage bill increase. We assume, in this sub-scenario, that no employees receive health benefits from their employers. Table 2b Estimates for Sub-scenario 2b Major Industry Group Total Annualized Value of Contracts 2-Digit SIC Output per Worker Worker Equivalents % Earning less than $11.97/hour Affected Workers as Expressed by Worker Equivalents Mean Wage of Affected Workers Total Wage Bill Increase Agricultural Services $ 1,332,320 07 $ 32,582 40.89 41.11% 16.81 $ 8.56 $ 119,162 Educational Services $ 388,102 82 $ 37,688 10.30 38.05% 3.92 $ 8.66 $ 27,016 Eating and Drinking Places $ 3,839,116 58 $ 38,469 99.80 72.49% 72.34 $ 7.88 $ 614,800 Local and Suburban Transit and Interurban Highway Passenger Transportation $ 397,500 41 $ 38,662 10.28 39.32% 4.04 $ 8.81 $ 26,601 Non-Profit Organizations $ 18,175,066 83/84/85 $ 38,849 467.84 59.28% 277.32 $ 8.18 $ 2,183,338 Personal Services $ 503,318 72 $ 45,612 11.03 39.34% 4.34 $ 8.59 $ 30,559 Amusement and Recreation $ 131,551 79 $ 46,282 2.84 47.63% 1.35 $ 8.47 $ 9,845 Rest of Retail $ 3,166,196 52/55/57/59 $ 55,762 56.78 55.02% 31.24 $ 8.25 $ 241,958 Medical Services $ 13,783,947 80 $ 64,801 212.71 38.96% 82.88 $ 8.69 $ 5 65,410 Miscellaneous Business Services $ 7,242,407 73 $ 67,035 108.04 44.16% 47.71 $ 8.57 $ 337,765 Miscellaneous Professional Services $ 67,350,100 81/87/89/99 $ 81,950 821.84 23.63% 194.20 $ 8.74 $ 1,302,923 Construction $ 89,889,231 15/16/17 $ 105,381 852.99 44.32% 378.03 $ 8.73 $ 2,54 7,839 Insurance $ 2,654,047 63/64 $ 112,713 23.55 29.79% 7.01 $ 9.40 $ 3 7,554 Trucking $ 16,322,770 42 $ 112,788 144.72 37.46% 54.22 $ 8.76 $ 362,101 Motion Pictures $ 36,500 78 $ 114,385 0.32 38.08% 0.12 $ 8.67 $ 834 Automotive Repair and Services $ 53,643 75 $ 123,047 0.44 53.75% 0.23 $ 8.44 $ 1,720 Other Transport $ 495,907 47 $ 132,894 3.73 38.12% 1.42 $ 8.61 $ 9,952 Printing $ 34,974 27 $ 141,122 0.25 41.73% 0.10 $ 8.57 $ 731 Wholesale Trade $ 3,264,658 50 $ 145,308 22.47 40.47% 9.09 $ 8.74 $ 61,148 Credit and Finance $ 2,377,574 61/67 $ 174,395 13.63 39.02% 5.32 $ 9.32 $ 29,323 Instruments $ 998,632 38 $ 276,370 3.61 39.05% 1.41 $ 8.75 $ 9,449 Communication $ 637,576 48 $ 293,982 2.17 22.28% 0.48 $ 9.05 $ 2,935 Food $ 16,809,211 54 $ 321,017 52.36 66.70% 34.93 $ 7.97 $ 290,372 Real Estate $ 538,157 65 $ 340,256 1.58 33.61% 0.53 $ 8.63 $ 3,695 Public Utilities $ 9,275,487 49 $ 440,808 21.04 29.53% 6.21 $ 9.01 $ 38,291 Totals $ 259,697,990 2,985.22 1,235.29 $ 8,855,322 Under the provisions of Sub-scenario 2b, we estimate 1,235.29 workers (as expressed by worker equivalents) would receive a wage increase. We estimate the annual wage bill increase attributed to these workers at $8,855,322. The greatest amount of affected workers, 378.03, is attributed to major industry group Construction. Major industry group Printing contributes the fewest workers to the total – 0.10. Major industry group Construction contributes the greatest share of the annual wage bill increase, $2,547,839. Major industry group Printing contributes the smallest share of the annual wage bill increase, $731.

PAGE 14

11 Industry Results – Scenario 3 Scenario 3 calls for a “living wage” calculated at $9.97/hour for employees that have health benefits and at $11.97/hour for employees that do not have health benefits. The scenario requires companies with contracts of $50,000 or more to pay their fulland part-time employees the “living wage” only for the hours they perform work on the County contract. This scenario covers $256,811,887 in annualized value of contracts, and 2,936.53 annual worker equivalents. Major industry group Construction contributes the largest amounts towards these totals, with $89,533,574 of annualized contract value and 849.62 worker equivalents. Table 3a reports the estimated number of contractors’ employees, by major industry group, that would be affected by the potential ordinance, and the corresponding annual wage bill increase. We assume, in this sub-scenario, that all employees receive health benefits from their employers. Table 3a Estimates for Sub-scenario 3a Major Industry Group Total Annualized Value of Contracts 2-Digit SIC Output per Worker Worker Equivalents % Earning less than $9.97/hour Affected Workers as Expressed by Worker Equivalents Mean Wage of Affected Workers Total Wage Bill Increase Agricultural Services $ 1,301,000 07 $ 32,582 39.93 29.24% 11.68 $ 7.65 $ 56,391 Educational Services $ 328,343 82 $ 37,688 8.71 25.43% 2.22 $ 7.53 $ 11,230 Eating and Drinking Places $ 3,839,116 58 $ 38,469 99.80 58.78% 58.66 $ 7.21 $ 336,161 Local and Suburban Transit and Interurban Highway Passenger Transportation $ 357,500 41 $ 38,662 9.25 26.76% 2.47 $ 7.87 $ 10,830 Non-Profit Organizations $ 17,349,987 83/84/85 $ 38,849 446.60 45.73% 204.21 $ 7.39 $ 1,094,736 Personal Services $ 419,518 72 $ 45,612 9.20 27.38% 2.52 $ 7.61 $ 12,369 Amusement and Recreation $ 131,551 79 $ 46,282 2.84 33.88% 0.96 $ 7.51 $ 4,920 Rest of Retail $ 3,102,256 52/55/57/59 $ 55,762 55.63 42.30% 23.53 $ 7.46 $ 123,098 Medical Services $ 13,456,976 80 $ 64,801 207.67 26.77% 55.59 $ 7.74 $ 2 58,367 Miscellaneous Business Services $ 6,986,732 73 $ 67,035 104.23 31.58% 32.91 $ 7.68 $ 156,767 Miscellaneous Professional Services $ 66,856,478 81/87/89/99 $ 81,950 815.82 15.84% 129.22 $ 7.75 $ 5 96,887 Construction $ 89,533,574 15/16/17 $ 105,381 849.62 30.89% 262.49 $ 7.81 $ 1,17 6,750 Insurance $ 2,654,047 63/64 $ 112,713 23.55 17.04% 4.01 $ 8.21 $ 1 4,658 Trucking $ 16,189,505 42 $ 112,788 143.54 25.95% 37.25 $ 7.78 $ 169,703 Automotive Repair and Services $ 53,643 75 $ 123,047 0.44 39.63% 0.17 $ 7.59 $ 857 Other Transport $ 455,907 47 $ 132,894 3.43 26.55% 0.91 $ 7.65 $ 4,388 Wholesale Trade $ 3,228,832 50 $ 145,308 22.22 28.42% 6.32 $ 7.82 $ 28,248 Credit and Finance $ 2,337,574 61/67 $ 174,395 13.40 22.93% 3.07 $ 8.22 $ 11,175 Instruments $ 998,632 38 $ 276,370 3.61 27.01% 0.98 $ 7.81 $ 4,390 Communication $ 607,861 48 $ 293,982 2.07 14.41% 0.30 $ 8.04 $ 1,198 Food $ 16,809,211 54 $ 321,017 52.36 54.11% 28.33 $ 7.32 $ 156,065 Real Estate $ 538,157 65 $ 340,256 1.58 23.71% 0.38 $ 7.71 $ 1,763 Public Utilities $ 9,275,487 49 $ 440,808 21.04 19.17% 4.03 $ 7.95 $ 16,960 Totals $ 256,811,887 2,936.53 872.21 $ 4,247,909

PAGE 15

12 Under the provisions of Sub-scenario 3a, we estimate 872.21 workers (as expressed by worker equivalents) would receive a wage increase. We estimate the annual wage bill increase attributed to these workers at $4,247,909. The greatest amount of affected workers, 262.49, is attributed to major industry group Construction. Major industry group Automobile Repair and Services (SIC 75) contributes the fewest workers to the total – 0.17. Major industry group Construction contributes the greatest share of the annual wage bill increase, $1,176,750. Major industry group Automobile Repair and Services contributes the smallest share of the annual wage bill increase, $857. Table 3b reports the estimated number of contractors’ employees, by major industry group, that would be affected by the potential ordinance, and the corresponding annual wage bill increase. We assume, in this sub-scenario, that no employees receive health benefits from their employers. Table 3b Estimates for Sub-scenario 3b Major Industry Group Total Annualized Value of Contracts 2-Digit SIC Output per Worker Worker Equivalents % Earning less than $11.97/hour Affected Workers as Expressed by Worker Equivalents Mean Wage of Affected Workers Total Wage Bill Increase Agricultural Services $ 1,301,000 07 $ 32,582 39.93 41.11% 16.42 $ 8.56 $ 116,361 Educational Services $ 328,343 82 $ 37,688 8.71 38.05% 3.32 $ 8.66 $ 22,856 Eating and Drinking Places $ 3,839,116 58 $ 38,469 99.80 72.49% 72.34 $ 7.88 $ 614,800 Local and Suburban Transit and Interurban Highway Passenger Transportation $ 357,500 41 $ 38,662 9.25 39.32% 3.64 $ 8.81 $ 23,924 Non-Profit Organizations $ 17,349,987 83/84/85 $ 38,849 446.60 59.28% 264.73 $ 8.18 $ 2,084,223 Personal Services $ 419,518 72 $ 45,612 9.20 39.34% 3.62 $ 8.59 $ 25,471 Amusement and Recreation $ 131,551 79 $ 46,282 2.84 47.63% 1.35 $ 8.47 $ 9,845 Rest of Retail $ 3,102,256 52/55/57/59 $ 55,762 55.63 55.02% 30.61 $ 8.25 $ 237,072 Medical Services $ 13,456,976 80 $ 64,801 207.67 38.96% 80.92 $ 8.69 $ 551,998 Miscellaneous Business Services $ 6,986,732 73 $ 67,035 104.23 44.16% 46.03 $ 8. 57 $ 325,841 Miscellaneous Professional Services $ 66,856,478 81/87/89/99 $ 81,950 815.82 23.63% 192.78 $ 8.74 $ 1,293,374 Construction $ 89,533,574 15/16/17 $ 105,381 849.62 44.32% 376.54 $ 8.73 $ 2,5 37,758 Insurance $ 2,654,047 63/64 $ 112,713 23.55 29.79% 7.01 $ 9.40 $ 37,554 Trucking $ 16,189,505 42 $ 112,788 143.54 37.46% 53.77 $ 8.76 $ 359,145 Automotive Repair and Services $ 53,643 75 $ 123,047 0.44 53.75% 0.23 $ 8.44 $ 1,720 Other Transport $ 455,907 47 $ 132,894 3.43 38.12% 1.31 $ 8.61 $ 9,150 Wholesale Trade $ 3,228,832 50 $ 145,308 22.22 40.47% 8.99 $ 8.74 $ 60,476 Credit and Finance $ 2,337,574 61/67 $ 174,395 13.40 39.02% 5.23 $ 9.32 $ 28,830 Instruments $ 998,632 38 $ 276,370 3.61 39.05% 1.41 $ 8.75 $ 9,449 Communication $ 607,861 48 $ 293,982 2.07 22.28% 0.46 $ 9.05 $ 2,798 Food $ 16,809,211 54 $ 321,017 52.36 66.70% 34.93 $ 7.97 $ 290,372 Real Estate $ 538,157 65 $ 340,256 1.58 33.61% 0.53 $ 8.63 $ 3,695 Public Utilities $ 9,275,487 49 $ 440,808 21.04 29.53% 6.21 $ 9.01 $ 38,291 Totals $ 256,811,887 2,936.53 1,212.38 $ 8,685,003 Under the provisions of Sub-scenario 3b, we estimate 1,212.38 workers (as expressed by worker equivalents) would receive a wage increase. We estimate the annual wage bill increase attributed to these workers at $8,685,003. The greatest amount of affected workers, 376.54, is attributed to major industry group Construction. Major

PAGE 16

13 industry group Automobile Repair and Services contributes the fewest workers to the total – 0.23. Major industry group Construction contributes the greatest share of the annual wage bill increase, $2,537,758. Major industry group Automobile Repair and Services contributes the smallest share of the annual wage bill increase, $1,720. Industry Results – Scenario 4 Scenario 4 calls for a “living wage” calculated at $9.97/hour for employees that have health benefits and at $11.97/hour for employees that do not have health benefits. The scenario requires companies with contracts of $100,000 or more to pay their fulland part-time employees the “living wage” only for the hours they perform work on the County contract. This scenario covers $251,719,960 in annualized value of contracts, and 2,844.76 annual worker equivalents. Major industry group Construction contributes the largest amounts towards these totals, with $89,263,789 of annualized contract value and 847.06 worker equivalents. Table 4a reports the estimated number of contractors’ employees, by major industry group, that would be affected by the potential ordinance, and the corresponding annual wage bill increase. We assume, in this sub-scenario, that all employees receive health benefits from their employers. Table 4a Estimates for Sub-scenario 4a Major Industry Group Total Annualized Value of Contracts 2-Digit SIC Output per Worker Worker Equivalents % Earning less than $9.97/hour Affected Workers as Expressed by Worker Equivalents Mean Wage of Affected Workers Total Wage Bill Increase Agricultural Services $ 1,002,709 07 $ 32,582 30.77 29.24% 9.00 $ 7.65 $ 43,462 Educational Services $ 328,343 82 $ 37,688 8.71 25.43% 2.22 $ 7.53 $ 11,230 Eating and Drinking Places $ 3,839,116 58 $ 38,469 99.80 58.78% 58.66 $ 7.21 $ 336,161 Local and Suburban Transit and Interurban Highway Passenger Transportation $ 232,500 41 $ 38,662 6.01 26.76% 1.61 $ 7.87 $ 7,043 Non-Profit Organizations $ 15,792,831 83/84/85 $ 38,849 406.52 45.73% 185.89 $ 7.39 $ 996,484 Personal Services $ 319,621 72 $ 45,612 7.01 27.38% 1.92 $ 7.61 $ 9,424 Amusement and Recreation $ 131,551 79 $ 46,282 2.84 33.88% 0.96 $ 7.51 $ 4,920 Rest of Retail $ 3,102,256 52/55/57/59 $ 55,762 55.63 42.30% 23.53 $ 7.46 $ 123,098 Medical Services $ 12,731,064 80 $ 64,801 196.46 26.77% 52.59 $ 7.74 $ 244,430 Miscellaneous Business Services $ 6,572,154 73 $ 67,035 98.04 31.58% 30.96 $ 7.68 $ 147,465 Miscellaneous Professional Services $ 65,619,594 81/87/89/99 $ 81,950 800.73 15.84% 126.83 $ 7.75 $ 585,845 Construction $ 89,263,789 15/16/17 $ 105,381 847.06 30.89% 261.70 $ 7.81 $ 1, 173,204 Insurance $ 2,654,047 63/64 $ 112,713 23.55 17.04% 4.01 $ 8.21 $ 14,658 Trucking $ 16,189,505 42 $ 112,788 143.54 25.95% 37.25 $ 7.78 $ 169,703 Other Transport $ 398,907 47 $ 132,894 3.00 26.55% 0.80 $ 7.65 $ 3,839 Wholesale Trade $ 3,113,912 50 $ 145,308 21.43 28.42% 6.09 $ 7.82 $ 27,243 Credit and Finance $ 2,337,574 61/67 $ 174,395 13.40 22.93% 3.07 $ 8.22 $ 11,175 Instruments $ 998,632 38 $ 276,370 3.61 27.01% 0.98 $ 7.81 $ 4,390 Communication $ 519,000 48 $ 293,982 1.77 14.41% 0.25 $ 8.04 $ 1,023 Food $ 16,809,211 54 $ 321,017 52.36 54.11% 28.33 $ 7.32 $ 156,065 Real Estate $ 538,157 65 $ 340,256 1.58 23.71% 0.38 $ 7.71 $ 1,763 Public Utilities $ 9,225,487 49 $ 440,808 20.93 19.17% 4.01 $ 7.95 $ 16,868 Totals $ 251,719,960 2,844.76 841.03 $ 4,089,490

PAGE 17

14 Under the provisions of Sub-scenario 4a, we estimate 841.03 workers (as expressed by worker equivalents) would receive a wage increase. We estimate the annual wage bill increase attributed to these workers at $4,089,490. The greatest amount of affected workers, 261.70, is attributed to major industry group Construction. Major industry group Communication contributes the fewest workers to the total – 0.25. Major industry group Construction contributes the greatest share of the annual wage bill increase, $1,173,204. Major industry group Communication contributes the smallest share of the annual wage bill increase, $1,023. Table 4b reports the estimated number of contractors’ employees, by major industry group, that would be affected by the potential ordinance, and the corresponding annual wage bill increase. We assume, in this sub-scenario, that no employees receive health benefits from their employers. Table 4b Estimates for Sub-scenario 4b Major Industry Group Total Annualized Value of Contracts 2-Digit SIC Output per Worker Worker Equivalents % Earning less than $11.97/hour Affected Workers as Expressed by Worker Equivalents Mean Wage of Affected Workers Total Wage Bill Increase Agricultural Services $ 1,002,709 07 $ 32,582 30.77 41.11% 12.65 $ 8.56 $ 89,682 Educational Services $ 328,343 82 $ 37,688 8.71 38.05% 3.32 $ 8.66 $ 22,856 Eating and Drinking Places $ 3,839,116 58 $ 38,469 99.80 72.49% 72.34 $ 7.88 $ 614,800 Local and Suburban Transit and Interurban Highway Passenger Transportation $ 232,500 41 $ 38,662 6.01 39.32% 2.36 $ 8.81 $ 15,559 Non-Profit Organizations $ 15,792,831 83/84/85 $ 38,849 406.52 59.28% 240.97 $ 8.18 $ 1,897,165 Personal Services $ 319,621 72 $ 45,612 7.01 39.34% 2.76 $ 8.59 $ 19,406 Amusement and Recreation $ 131,551 79 $ 46,282 2.84 47.63% 1.35 $ 8.47 $ 9,845 Rest of Retail $ 3,102,256 52/55/57/59 $ 55,762 55.63 55.02% 30.61 $ 8.25 $ 237,072 Medical Services $ 12,731,064 80 $ 64,801 196.46 38.96% 76.55 $ 8.69 $ 522,222 Miscellaneous Business Services $ 6,572,154 73 $ 67,035 98.04 44.16% 43.30 $ 8.57 $ 306,507 Miscellaneous Professional Services $ 65,619,594 81/87/89/99 $ 81,950 800.73 23.63% 189.21 $ 8.74 $ 1,269,445 Construction $ 89,263,789 15/16/17 $ 105,381 847.06 44.32% 375.40 $ 8.73 $ 2, 530,111 Insurance $ 2,654,047 63/64 $ 112,713 23.55 29.79% 7.01 $ 9.40 $ 37,554 Trucking $ 16,189,505 42 $ 112,788 143.54 37.46% 53.77 $ 8.76 $ 359,145 Other Transport $ 398,907 47 $ 132,894 3.00 38.12% 1.14 $ 8.61 $ 8,006 Wholesale Trade $ 3,113,912 50 $ 145,308 21.43 40.47% 8.67 $ 8.74 $ 58,324 Credit and Finance $ 2,337,574 61/67 $ 174,395 13.40 39.02% 5.23 $ 9.32 $ 28,830 Instruments $ 998,632 38 $ 276,370 3.61 39.05% 1.41 $ 8.75 $ 9,449 Communication $ 519,000 48 $ 293,982 1.77 22.28% 0.39 $ 9.05 $ 2,389 Food $ 16,809,211 54 $ 321,017 52.36 66.70% 34.93 $ 7.97 $ 290,372 Real Estate $ 538,157 65 $ 340,256 1.58 33.61% 0.53 $ 8.63 $ 3,695 Public Utilities $ 9,225,487 49 $ 440,808 20.93 29.53% 6.18 $ 9.01 $ 38,085 Totals $ 251,719,960 2,844.76 1,170.10 $ 8,370,517 Under the provisions of Sub-scenario 4b, we estimate 1,170.10 workers (as expressed by worker equivalents) would receive a wage increase. We estimate the annual wage bill increase attributed to these workers at $8,370,517. The greatest amount of affected workers, 375.40, is attributed to major industry group Construction. Major industry group Communication contributes the fewest workers to the total – 0.39. Major

PAGE 18

15 industry group Construction contributes the greatest share of the annual wage bill increase, $2,530,111. Major industry group Communication contributes the smallest share of the annual wage bill increase, $2,389. Industry Results – Scenario 5 Scenario 5 calls for a “living wage” calculated at $7.33/hour for employees that have health benefits and at $9.33/hour for employees that do not have health benefits. The scenario requires companies with contracts of $50,000 or more to pay their fulland part-time employees the “living wage” only for the hours they perform work on the County contract. This scenario covers $256,811,887 in annualized value of contracts, and 2,936.53 annual worker equivalents. Major industry group Construction contributes the largest amounts towards these totals, with $89,263,789 of annualized contract value and 847.06 worker equivalents. Table 5a reports the estimated number of contractors’ employees, by major industry group, that would be affected by the potential ordinance, and the corresponding annual wage bill increase. We assume, in this sub-scenario, that all employees receive health benefits from their employers. Table 5a Estimates for Sub-scenario 5a Major Industry Group Total Annualized Value of Contracts 2-Digit SIC Output per Worker Worker Equivalents % Earning less than $7.33/hour Affected Workers as Expressed by Worker Equivalents Mean Wage of Affected Workers Total Wage Bill Increase Agricultural Services $ 1,301,000 07 $ 32,582 39.93 12.61% 5.03 $ 6.34 $ 10,393 Educational Services $ 328,343 82 $ 37,688 8.71 11.98% 1.04 $ 6.24 $ 2,370 Eating and Drinking Places $ 3,839,116 58 $ 38,469 99.80 32.54% 32.48 $ 6.19 $ 76,879 Local and Suburban Transit and Interurban Highway Passenger Transportation $ 357,500 41 $ 38,662 9.25 10.05% 0.93 $ 6.41 $ 1,778 Non-Profit Organizations $ 17,349,987 83/84/85 $ 38,849 446.60 21.96% 98.07 $ 6.22 $ 226,681 Personal Services $ 419,518 72 $ 45,612 9.20 12.21% 1.12 $ 6.37 $ 2,251 Amusement and Recreation $ 131,551 79 $ 46,282 2.84 16.28% 0.46 $ 6.36 $ 938 Rest of Retail $ 3,102,256 52/55/57/59 $ 55,762 55.63 21.05% 11.71 $ 6.27 $ 25,841 Medical Services $ 13,456,976 80 $ 64,801 207.67 10.12% 21.01 $ 6.30 $ 44,797 Miscellaneous Business Services $ 6,986,732 73 $ 67,035 104.23 13.31% 13.87 $ 6. 37 $ 27,571 Miscellaneous Professional Services $ 66,856,478 81/87/89/99 $ 81,950 815.82 6.08% 49.59 $ 6.36 $ 99,932 Construction $ 89,533,574 15/16/17 $ 105,381 849.62 11.86% 100.77 $ 6.38 $ 199,386 Insurance $ 2,654,047 63/64 $ 112,713 23.55 4.28% 1.01 $ 6.42 $ 1,909 Trucking $ 16,189,505 42 $ 112,788 143.54 9.56% 13.72 $ 6.38 $ 27,010 Automobile Repair and Service $ 53,643 75 $ 123,047 0.44 18.25% 0.08 $ 6.30 $ 170 Other Transport $ 455,907 47 $ 132,894 3.43 11.39% 0.39 $ 6.35 $ 795 Wholesale Trade $ 3,228,832 50 $ 145,308 22.22 10.23% 2.27 $ 6.29 $ 4,900 Credit and Finance $ 2,337,574 61/67 $ 174,395 13.40 5.68% 0.76 $ 6.51 $ 1,296 Instruments $ 998,632 38 $ 276,370 3.61 10.26% 0.37 $ 6.41 $ 712 Communication $ 607,861 48 $ 293,982 2.07 3.93% 0.08 $ 6.35 $ 165 Food $ 16,809,211 54 $ 321,017 52.36 28.47% 14.91 $ 6.23 $ 34,096 Real Estate $ 538,157 65 $ 340,256 1.58 9.18% 0.15 $ 6.29 $ 315 Public Utilities $ 9,275,487 49 $ 440,808 21.04 6.10% 1.28 $ 6.29 $ 2,781 Totals $ 256,811,887 2,936.53 371.12 $ 792,967

PAGE 19

16 Under the provisions of Sub-scenario 5a, we estimate 371.12 workers (as expressed by worker equivalents) would receive a wage increase. We estimate the annual wage bill increase attributed to these workers at $792,967. The greatest amount of affected workers, 100.77, is attributed to major industry group Construction. Major industry groups Automobile Repair and Service and Communication contribute the fewest workers to the total – 0.08 each. Major industry group Construction contributes the greatest share of the annual wage bill increase, $199,386. Major industry group Communication contributes the smallest share of the annual wage bill increase, $165. Table 5b reports the estimated number of contractors’ employees, by major industry group, that would be affected by the potential ordinance, and the corresponding annual wage bill increase. We assume, in this sub-scenario, that no employees receive health benefits from their employers. Table 5b Estimates for Sub-scenario 5b Major Industry Group Total Annualized Value of Contracts 2-Digit SIC Output per Worker Worker Equivalents % Earning less than $9.33/hour Affected Workers as Expressed by Worker Equivalents Mean Wage of Affected Workers Total Wage Bill Increase Agricultural Services $ 1,301,000 07 $ 32,582 39.93 24.98% 9.98 $ 7.31 $ 41,820 Educational Services $ 328,343 82 $ 37,688 8.71 22.61% 1.97 $ 7.27 $ 8,423 Eating and Drinking Places $ 3,839,116 58 $ 38,469 99.80 53.38% 53.27 $ 6 .97 $ 261,138 Local and Suburban Transit and Interurban Highway Passenger Transportation $ 357,500 41 $ 38,662 9.25 21.45% 1.98 $ 7.43 $ 7,824 Non-Profit Organizations $ 17,349,987 83/84/85 $ 38,849 446.60 41.77% 186.52 $ 7.18 $ 833,183 Personal Services $ 419,518 72 $ 45,612 9.20 23.73% 2.18 $ 7.30 $ 9,207 Amusement and Recreation $ 131,551 79 $ 46,282 2.84 29.76% 0.85 $ 7.23 $ 3,704 Rest of Retail $ 3,102,256 52/55/57/59 $ 55,762 55.63 37.20% 20.70 $ 7.16 $ 93,450 Medical Services $ 13,456,976 80 $ 64,801 207.67 21.93% 45.53 $ 7.36 $ 186,371 Miscellaneous Business Services $ 6,986,732 73 $ 67,035 104.23 26.62% 27.74 $ 7.32 $ 115,946 Miscellaneous Professional Services $ 66,856,478 81/87/89/99 $ 81,950 815.82 13.53% 110.36 $ 7.44 $ 434, 098 Construction $ 89,533,574 15/16/17 $ 105,381 849.62 24.86% 211.20 $ 7.38 $ 856,067 Insurance $ 2,654,047 63/64 $ 112,713 23.55 12.75% 3.00 $ 7.74 $ 9,951 Trucking $ 16,189,505 42 $ 112,788 143.54 22.24% 31.93 $ 7.47 $ 123, 451 Automobile Repair and Service $ 53,643 75 $ 123,047 0.44 34.21% 0.15 $ 7.26 $ 641 Other Transport $ 455,907 47 $ 132,894 3.43 22.68% 0.78 $ 7.32 $ 3,249 Wholesale Trade $ 3,228,832 50 $ 145,308 22.22 23.22% 5.16 $ 7.42 $ 20,530 Credit and Finance $ 2,337,574 61/67 $ 174,395 13.40 17.24% 2.31 $ 7.76 $ 7,545 Instruments $ 998,632 38 $ 276,370 3.61 22.18% 0.80 $ 7.41 $ 3,198 Communication $ 607,861 48 $ 293,982 2.07 11.14% 0.23 $ 7.58 $ 840 Food $ 16,809,211 54 $ 321,017 52.36 48.68% 25.49 $ 7.07 $ 120,047 Real Estate $ 538,157 65 $ 340,256 1.58 20.48% 0.32 $ 7.41 $ 1,293 Public Utilities $ 9,275,487 49 $ 440,808 21.04 15.57% 3.28 $ 7.56 $ 12,051 Totals $ 256,811,887 2,936.53 745.74 $ 3,154,030 Under the provisions of Sub-scenario 5b, we estimate 745.74 workers (as expressed by worker equivalents) would receive a wage increase. We estimate the annual wage bill increase attributed to these workers at $3,154,030. The greatest amount of affected workers, 211.20, is attributed to major industry group Construction. Major

PAGE 20

17 industry group Automobile Repair and Service contributes the fewest workers to the total – 0.15 each. Major industry group Construction contributes the greatest share of the annual wage bill increase, $856,067. Major industry group Automobile Repair and Service contributes the smallest share of the annual wage bill increase, $641.

PAGE 21

18 Appendix A – Core Variables 1. Living Wage to be calculated at $7.33/hour for employees that have health benefits and at $9.33 for employees that do not have health benefits. 2. Living Wage to be calculated at $9.97/hour for employees that have health benefits and at $11.97 for employees that do not have health benefits. 3. Fulland part-time employees of agencies that come under the BOCC budget authority. 4. Fulland part-time employees of agencies that do not come under the BOCC budget authority but historically have followed the BOCC salary schedule or are likely to be indirectly impacted by BOCC action and the pressures associated with competing for similar applicants/employees. 5. Fulland part-time employees of companies with County service and construction contracts of $25,000 or more, and only for the hours that they are performing work on these contracts. 6. Fulland part-time employees of companies with County service and construction contracts of $50, 000 or more, and only for the hours that they are performing work on these contracts. 7. Fulland part-time employees of companies with County service and construction contracts of $100, 000 or more, and only for the hours that they are performing work on these contracts. 8. Companies that receive tax abatements (e.g., financial incentives for jobs created.) Notes: a. Temporary employees are not included. b. Agencies under the BOCC budget authority are: County Administrator, County Attorney’s Office, Clerk of Circuit Court, Supervisor of Elections, Property Appraiser, Tax Collector, Sheriff, Environmental Protection Agency, Planning Commission, Law Library, Legislative Delegation, Soil and Water Conservation District, Civil Service Board, Victim Assistance. c. Agencies that do not come under the BOCC budget but historically have followed the BOCC salary schedule or are likely to be indirectly impacted by BOCC action and the pressures associated with competing for similar applicants/employees are: Public Transportation Commission, Expressway Authority, Sports Authority, Children’s Board, Arts Council, Aviation Authority, and Port Authority.

PAGE 22

19 Appendix B – “Living Wage” Scenarios Scenario 1 Living Wage to be calculated at $7.33/hour for employees that have health benefits and at $9.33 for employees that do not have health benefits. This scenario to include fulland part-time employees of: !" Agencies that come under the BOCC budget authority. !" Agencies that do not come under the BOCC budget authority but that historically have followed the BOCC salary schedule or are likely to be indirectly impacted by BOCC action. !" Companies with County service or construction contracts of $100, 000 or more, and only for the hours that they are performing work on these contracts. !" Companies that receive tax abatements. Scenario 2 Living Wage to be calculated at $9.97/hour for employees that have health benefits and at $11.97 for employees that do not have health benefits. This scenario to include fulland part-time employees of: !" Agencies that come under the BOCC budget authority. !" Agencies that do not come under the BOCC budget authority but that historically have followed the BOCC salary schedule or are likely to be indirectly impacted by BOCC action. !" Companies with County service or construction contracts of $25,000 or more, and only for the hours that they are performing work on these contracts. !" Companies that receive tax abatements. Scenario 3 Living Wage to be calculated at $9.97/hour for employees that have health benefits and at $11.97 for employees that do not have health benefits. This scenario to include fulland part-time employees of: !" Agencies that come under the BOCC budget authority. !" Agencies that do not come under the BOCC budget authority but that historically have followed the BOCC salary schedule or are likely to be indirectly impacted by BOCC action. !" Companies with County service or construction contracts of $50, 000 or more, and only for the hours that they are performing work on these contracts. !" Companies that receive tax abatements. Scenario 4 Living Wage to be calculated at $9.97/hour for employees that have health benefits and at $11.97 for employees that do not have health benefits. This scenario to include fulland part-time employees of: !" Agencies that come under the BOCC budget authority. !" Agencies that do not come under the BOCC budget authority but that historically have followed the BOCC salary schedule or are likely to be indirectly impacted by BOCC action.

PAGE 23

20 !" Companies with County service or construction contracts of $100, 000 or more, and only for the hours that they are performing work on these contracts. !" Companies that receive tax abatements. Scenario 5 Living Wage to be calculated at $7.33/hour for employees that have health benefits and at $9.33 for employees that do not have health benefits. This scenario to include fulland part-time employees of: !" Agencies that come under the BOCC budget authority. !" Agencies that do not come under the BOCC budget authority but that historically have followed the BOCC salary schedule or are likely to be indirectly impacted by BOCC action. !" Companies with County service or construction contracts of $50, 000 or more, and only for the hours that they are performing work on these contracts. !" Companies that receive tax abatements.

PAGE 24

21 Appendix C – List of Vendors Assigned SIC Codes Contract Title Vendor Name Annualized Value SIC SIC Description FUNERAL SERVICESINDIGENT BURIAL PROGRAM JIMMIE JACKSON $ 24,966 7261 Funeral Service and Crematories MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES AVALON PROFESSIONAL GROUP INC $ 29,619 8099 Health and Allied Services, Not Elsewhere Classified MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR HEAD START DANIELLA MAGLIONE $ 39,891 8049 Offices and Clinics of Health Practitioners, Not Elsewhere Classified MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR HEAD START JOHN CANTRELL $ 39,891 8049 Offices and Clinics of Health Practitioners, Not Elsewhere Classified TELEPHONE NOTIFICATION SYS (WATER DEPT) SUNSHINE STATE ONE-CALL $ 42,152 7373 Computer Integrated Systems Design ENERGY AUDIT COURTS PROJECT TERRY A THOMPSON -ENERGY MGMT CONSULTANT $ 49,664 8748 Business Consulting Services, Not Elsewhere Classified MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR HEAD START CAROL J CHANEY $ 49,863 8049 Offices and Clinics of Health Practitioners, Not Elsewhere Classified MEDICAL DIRECTOR MICHAEL LOZANO, JR., M.D., F.A.C.E.P. $ 49,932 8011 Offices and Clinics of Doctors of Medicine NURSING SERVICES FOR HEAD START CHILDREN DEBRA RAWDAN $ 59,836 8049 Offices and Clinics of Health Practitioners, Not Elsewhere Classified MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR HEAD START IDA DENISE LINDSEY $ 59,836 8049 Offices and Clinics of Health Practitioners, Not Elsewhere Classified MISC ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES SBE JAN ABELL/KENNETH GARCIA PARTNERSHIP $ 99,863 8712 Architectural Services PHARMACY BENEFITS MGMT SERVICES MANAGED PHARMACY BENEFITS INC $ 107,353 6411 Insurance Agents, Brokers, and Service HEARING MASTER SERVICES JERRY DABKOWSKI $ 160,000 8748 Business Consulting Services, Not Elsewhere Classified FIRE HYDRANT PAINTING SERVICES 3-VETS INC $ 196,200 1721 Painting and Paper Hanging WILLOW OAKS @TEMPLE TERR-116 UNIT BERESFORD & ASSOCIATES LTD $ 700,000 1522 General Contractors, Residential Buildings, Other than Single-Family ACQUISITION & DEVELOP LAND-AFF HSG HOUSING BY ST LAURENCE INC $ 540,000 1522 General Contractors, Residential Buildings, Other than Single-Family TRANSPORTATION SERVICES CITRUS CARS OF POLK COUNTY INC $ 38,940 5511 Motor Vehicle Dealers (New and Used) WORKING WHEELS'/CSBG CITRUS CARS OF POLK COUNTY INC $ 25,000 5511 Motor Vehicle Dealers (New and Used) ART IN PUBLIC PLACES AUDREY FLACK MARCUS $ 75,000 7336 Commercial Art and Graphic Design MEDICAL SERVICES H STEWART SIDDALL MD $ 33,120 8011 Offices and Clinics of Doctors of Medicine PROVISION OF REHABILITATION CARE/T1 EDWARD JAMES REID COUNSELING SVCS INC $ 50,000 8322 Individual and Family Social Services CRIME STOPPERS CRIME STOPPERS OF W CENTRAL FL $ 171,012 8399 Social Services, Not Elsewhere Classified HOMELESS SERVICES HOMELESS COALITION OF HILLSBOROUGH CTY $ 27,000 8399 Social Services, Not Elsewhere Classified INFRARED PHOTOGRAPHY FOR ROOFS INFRARED CONCEPTS CORPORATION $ 55,842 8734 Testing Laboratories PROJECT MANAGEMENT TRAINING TWIN STAR CONSULTING COMPANY $ 34,725 8742 Management Consulting Services LAND USE HEARING OFFICER -2ND YEAR JOHN A CRISLIP $ 50,000 8748 Business Consulting Services, Not Elsewhere Classified 2ND REL OF NEW CONTRACT FOR LUHO MARGARET C TUSING $ 25,000 8748 Business Consulting Services, Not Elsewhere Classified ANDERSON & WATERS #200336-R STEVEN TRACZYK $ 28,300 8748 Business Consulting Services, Not Elsewhere Classified VOLUNTEER SUPPORT FUNDS CORK-KNIGHTS VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSOC INC $ 25,000 N/A N/A VOLUNTEER SUPPORT FUNDS DOVER-TURKEY CREEK VFD $ 25,000 N/A N/A VOLUNTEER SUPPORT FUNDS SPRINGHEAD VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT $ 25,000 N/A N/A VOLUNTEER SUPPORT FUNDS SUNDANCE VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSOCIATION INC $ 25,000 N/A N/A

PAGE 25

22 Appendix D – Hillsborough County Output per Worker by SIC SIC Output (Bil. 96$) Output (Bil. 03$) Employment (000s) Output per Worker 01/02/07/08/09 $0.344 $0.368 11.307 $32,582 82 $0.320 $0.343 9.093 $37,688 58 $1.243 $1.331 34.604 $38,469 41 $0.020 $0.021 0.554 $38,662 83/84/86 $0.715 $0.766 19.710 $38,849 72/76 $0.628 $0.673 14.745 $45,612 79 $0.546 $0.585 12.634 $46,282 52/53/55/56/57/59 $3.968 $4.249 76.207 $55,762 80 $2.593 $2.777 42.853 $64,801 73 $9.775 $10.468 156.163 $67,035 81/87/89/99 $3.849 $4.122 50.299 $81,950 15/16/17 $3.741 $4.006 38.018 $105,381 42 $0.915 $0.980 8.688 $112,788 44/46/47 $0.700 $0.750 5.641 $132,894 50/51 $5.288 $5.663 38.973 $145,308 61/62/67 $2.130 $2.281 13.08 $174,395 38 $0.184 $0.197 0.713 $276,370 48 $3.108 $3.328 11.322 $293,982 54/20 $1.220 $1.307 4.070 $321,017 65 $5.711 $6.116 17.975 $340,256 49 $1.574 $1.686 3.824 $440,808 Source: REMI version 5.4

PAGE 26

23 Appendix E – Recoded SIC Codes of Government Vendors Contract Title Vendor Name Annualized Value Prior SIC SIC Recode SIC Recode Description DIRECT INDEPENDENT LIVING SVCS PROG SELF RELIANCE INC $ 26,000 9121 8361 Residential Care RD & MAINT AGREEMENT FY03 CITY OF TAMPA $ 373,310 9131 1611 Highway and Street Construction, Except Elevated Highways PROVISION OF AMBULANCE SERVICES CITY OF TAMPA $ 75,000 9131 4119 Local Passenger Transportation, Not Elsewhere Classified MEDICATIONS TITLE I STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH $ 178,026 9431 8099 Health and Allied Services, Not Elsewhere Classified DENTAL SVCS & CASE MGMT TITLE II STATE OF FLORIDA $ 194,260 9512 8021 Offices and Clinics of Dentists MEDICATION TITLE I STATE OF FLORIDA $ 178,026 9512 8099 Health and Allied Services, Not Elsewhere Classified AGREEMENT WITH STATE ATTORNEY STATE OF FLORIDA $ 62,500 9512 8111 Legal Services OUTPATIENT/AMBULATO RY MED TITLE II STATE OF FLORIDA $ 30,000 9512 8099 Health and Allied Services, Not Elsewhere Classified

PAGE 27

24 Appendix F – Geographic Regions of Interest and Corresponding Super-PUMA Codes Geographic Region Super-PUMAs Hillsborough County 12084-12085 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 12081-12085 Tampa Bay* 12081-12085, 12110,12140 Florida 12000-12999 Defined as Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, and Sarasota Counties

PAGE 28

25 Appendix G – Description of PUMS Samples Major Industry Group Agricultural Services Sample Source – Hillsborough County Total Records 3818 # Earning less than $7.33 405 % Earning less than $7.33 10.61% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.35 # Earning less than $9.33 849 % Earning less than $9.33 22.24% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.37 # Earning less than $9.97 1014 % Earning less than $9.97 26.56% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.73 # Earning less than $11.97 1454 % Earning less than $11.97 38.08% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $8.67 Major Industry Group Educational Services Sample Source Hillsborough County Total Records 1703 # Earning less than $7.33 204 % Earning less than $7.33 11.98% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.24 # Earning less than $9.33 385 % Earning less than $9.33 22.61% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.27 # Earning less than $9.97 433 % Earning less than $9.97 25.43% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.53 # Earning less than $11.97 648 % Earning less than $11.97 38.05% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $8.66 Major Industry Group Eating and Drinking Places Sample Source Hillsborough County Total Records 1094 # Earning less than $7.33 356 % Earning less than $7.33 32.54% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.19 # Earning less than $9.33 584 % Earning less than $9.33 53.38% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $6.97 # Earning less than $9.97 643 % Earning less than $9.97 58.78% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.21 # Earning less than $11.97 793 % Earning less than $11.97 72.49% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $7.88 Major Industry Group Local and Suburban Transit and Interurban Highway Passenger Transportation Sample Source Hillsborough County Total Records 1035 # Earning less than $7.33 104 % Earning less than $7.33 10.05% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.41 # Earning less than $9.33 222 % Earning less than $9.33 21.45% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.43 # Earning less than $9.97 277 % Earning less than $9.97 26.76% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.87 # Earning less than $11.97 407 % Earning less than $11.97 39.32% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $8.81

PAGE 29

26 Major Industry Group Non-Profit Organizations Sample Source MSA Total Records 1439 # Earning less than $7.33 316 % Earning less than $7.33 21.96% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.22 # Earning less than $9.33 601 % Earning less than $9.33 41.77% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.18 # Earning less than $9.97 658 % Earning less than $9.97 45.73% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.39 # Earning less than $11.97 853 % Earning less than $11.97 59.28% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $8.18 Major Industry Group Personal Services Sample Source Hillsborough County Total Records 4858 # Earning less than $7.33 593 % Earning less than $7.33 12.21% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.37 # Earning less than $9.33 1153 % Earning less than $9.33 23.73% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.30 # Earning less than $9.97 1330 % Earning less than $9.97 27.38% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.61 # Earning less than $11.97 1911 % Earning less than $11.97 39.34% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $8.59 Major Industry Group Amusement and Recreation Sample Source Hillsborough County Total Records 3353 # Earning less than $7.33 546 % Earning less than $7.33 16.28% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.36 # Earning less than $9.33 998 % Earning less than $9.33 29.76% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.23 # Earning less than $9.97 1136 % Earning less than $9.97 33.88% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.51 # Earning less than $11.97 1597 % Earning less than $11.97 47.63% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $8.47 Major Industry Group Rest of Retail Sample Source Hillsborough County Total Records 2532 # Earning less than $7.33 533 % Earning less than $7.33 21.05% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.27 # Earning less than $9.33 942 % Earning less than $9.33 37.20% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.16 # Earning less than $9.97 1071 % Earning less than $9.97 42.30% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.46 # Earning less than $11.97 1393 % Earning less than $11.97 55.02% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $8.25

PAGE 30

27 Major Industry Group Medical Services Sample Source Hillsborough County Total Records 2066 # Earning less than $7.33 209 % Earning less than $7.33 10.12% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.30 # Earning less than $9.33 453 % Earning less than $9.33 21.93% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.36 # Earning less than $9.97 553 % Earning less than $9.97 26.77% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.74 # Earning less than $11.97 805 % Earning less than $11.97 38.96% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $8.69 Major Industry Group Misc. Business Services Sample Source Hillsborough County Total Records 1653 # Earning less than $7.33 220 % Earning less than $7.33 13.31% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.37 # Earning less than $9.33 440 % Earning less than $9.33 26.62% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.32 # Earning less than $9.97 522 % Earning less than $9.97 31.58% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.68 # Earning less than $11.97 730 % Earning less than $11.97 44.16% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $8.57 Major Industry Group Misc. Professional Services Sample Source Hillsborough County Total Records 1168 # Earning less than $7.33 71 % Earning less than $7.33 6.08% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.36 # Earning less than $9.33 158 % Earning less than $9.33 13.53% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.44 # Earning less than $9.97 185 % Earning less than $9.97 15.84% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.75 # Earning less than $11.97 276 % Earning less than $11.97 23.63% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $8.74 Major Industry Group Construction Sample Source Hillsborough County Total Records 1408 # Earning less than $7.33 167 % Earning less than $7.33 11.86% Avg. Wage less than $7.33 $6.38 # Earning less than $9.33 350 % Earning less than $9.33 24.86% Avg. Wage less than $9.33 $7.38 # Earning less than $9.97 435 % Earning less than $9.97 30.89% Avg. Wage less than $9.97 $7.81 # Earning less than $11.97 624 % Earning less than $11.97 44.32% Avg. Wage less than $11.97 $8.73

PAGE 31

28 Major Industry Group Insurance Sample Source MSA Total Records 1984 # Earning less than $7.33 85 % Earning less than $7.33 4.28% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.42 # Earning less than $9.33 253 % Earning less than $9.33 12.75% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.74 # Earning less than $9.97 338 % Earning less than $9.97 17.04% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $8.21 # Earning less than $11.97 591 % Earning less than $11.97 29.79% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $9.40 Major Industry Group Trucking Sample Source Tampa Bay Total Records 1025 # Earning less than $7.33 98 % Earning less than $7.33 9.56% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.38 # Earning less than $9.33 228 % Earning less than $9.33 22.24% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.47 # Earning less than $9.97 266 % Earning less than $9.97 25.95% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.78 # Earning less than $11.97 384 % Earning less than $11.97 37.46% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $8.76 Major Industry Group Automobile Repair and Service Sample Source MSA Total Records 2011 # Earning less than $7.33 367 % Earning less than $7.33 18.25% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.30 # Earning less than $9.33 688 % Earning less than $9.33 34.21% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.26 # Earning less than $9.97 797 % Earning less than $9.97 39.63% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.59 # Earning less than $11.97 1081 % Earning less than $11.97 53.75% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $8.44 Major Industry Group Other Transport Sample Source Hillsborough County Total Records 2791 # Earning less than $7.33 318 % Earning less than $7.33 11.39% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.35 # Earning less than $9.33 633 % Earning less than $9.33 22.68% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.32 # Earning less than $9.97 741 % Earning less than $9.97 26.55% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.65 # Earning less than $11.97 1064 % Earning less than $11.97 38.12% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $8.61

PAGE 32

29 Major Industry Group Wholesale Trade Sample Source Hillsborough County Total Records 1154 # Earning less than $7.33 118 % Earning less than $7.33 10.23% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.29 # Earning less than $9.33 268 % Earning less than $9.33 23.22% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.42 # Earning less than $9.97 328 % Earning less than $9.97 28.42% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.82 # Earning less than $11.97 467 % Earning less than $11.97 40.47% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $8.74 Major Industry Group Credit and Finance Sample Source Hillsborough County Total Records 1038 # Earning less than $7.33 59 % Earning less than $7.33 5.68% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.51 # Earning less than $9.33 179 % Earning less than $9.33 17.24% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.76 # Earning less than $9.97 238 % Earning less than $9.97 22.93% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $8.22 # Earning less than $11.97 405 % Earning less than $11.97 39.02% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $9.32 Major Industry Group Instruments Sample Source MSA Total Records 2525 # Earning less than $7.33 259 % Earning less than $7.33 10.26% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.41 # Earning less than $9.33 560 % Earning less than $9.33 22.18% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.41 # Earning less than $9.97 682 % Earning less than $9.97 27.01% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.81 # Earning less than $11.97 986 % Earning less than $11.97 39.05% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $8.75 Major Industry Group Communication Sample Source MSA Total Records 1221 # Earning less than $7.33 48 % Earning less than $7.33 3.93% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.35 # Earning less than $9.33 136 % Earning less than $9.33 11.14% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.58 # Earning less than $9.97 176 % Earning less than $9.97 14.41% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $8.04 # Earning less than $11.97 272 % Earning less than $11.97 22.28% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $9.05

PAGE 33

30 Major Industry Group Food Sample Source Hillsborough County Total Records 2652 # Earning less than $7.33 755 % Earning less than $7.33 28.47% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.23 # Earning less than $9.33 1291 % Earning less than $9.33 48.68% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.07 # Earning less than $9.97 1435 % Earning less than $9.97 54.11% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.32 # Earning less than $11.97 1769 % Earning less than $11.97 66.70% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $7.97 Major Industry Group Real Estate Sample Source Hillsborough County Total Records 2505 # Earning less than $7.33 230 % Earning less than $7.33 9.18% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.29 # Earning less than $9.33 513 % Earning less than $9.33 20.48% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.41 # Earning less than $9.97 594 % Earning less than $9.97 23.71% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.71 # Earning less than $11.97 842 % Earning less than $11.97 33.61% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $8.63 Major Industry Group Public Utilities Sample Source Florida Total Records 4246 # Earning less than $7.33 259 % Earning less than $7.33 6.10% Avg. Wage < $7.33 $6.29 # Earning less than $9.33 661 % Earning less than $9.33 15.57% Avg. Wage < $9.33 $7.56 # Earning less than $9.97 814 % Earning less than $9.97 19.17% Avg. Wage < $9.97 $7.95 # Earning less than $11.97 1254 % Earning less than $11.97 29.53% Avg. Wage < $11.97 $9.01


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200313Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 002029779
005 20090928181121.0
006 m d
007 cr cn|||||||||
008 090922s2004 flu sb 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C63-00050
035
(OCoLC)437430942
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
049
FHMM
090
HD4976.F6 (ONLINE)
0 245
Estimate of contract workers affected by Hillsborough County's potential living wage ordinance
h [electronic resource] /
prepared for Hillsborough County Department of Health and Social Services by the Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
b Center for Economic Development Research,
2004.
300
1 online resource (ii, 30 p.)
500
Title from PDF of cover (viewed Sept. 22, 2009).
"February 2004."
504
Includes bibliographical references.
650
Wages
z Florida
Hillsborough County.
Living wage movement
Florida
Hillsborough County.
651
Hillsborough County (Fla.)
x Economic conditions.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Economic Development Research.
1
Hillsborough County (Fla.).
Health & Social Services Dept.
8 773
t Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR) Collection
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c63.50